Insight into Gender Differences in Higher Education: Evidence from Peer Reviews in an Introductory STEM Course

References

• Barr RB, Tagg J (1995) A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change 27(6):13–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bitner MJ, Brown SW, Meuter ML (2000) Technology infusion in service encounters. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 28(1):138–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bitner MJ, Faranda WT, Hubbert AR, Zeithaml VA (1997) Customer contributions and roles in service delivery. Internat. J. Service Indust. Management 8(3):193–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boud D, Cohen R, Sampson J (1999) Peer learning and assessment. Assessment Evaluation Higher Ed. 24(4):413–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carli L (1989) Gender differences in interaction style and influence. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 56(4):565–576.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheryan S, Master A, Meltzoff AN (2015) Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers Psych. 6(49):1–8.Google Scholar
• Cheryan S, Ziegler SA, Montoya AK, Jiang L (2017) Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psych. Bull. 143(1):1–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cho Y, Cho K (2011) Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Sci. 39(5):629–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cho K, Schunn C (2007) Scaffolding writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Comput. Ed. 48(3):409–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Connolly T, Jessup LM, Valacich JS (1990) Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Sci. 36(6):689–703.Link, Google Scholar
• Dabholkar PA (1996) Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options: An investigation of alternative models of service quality. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 13(1):29–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Desanctis G, Gallupe RB (1987) A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Sci. 33(5):589–609.Link, Google Scholar
• Dochy F, Segers M, Sluijsmans D (1999) The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Stud. Higher Ed. 24(3):331–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erickson T, Kellogg WA (2000) Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM Trans. Comput.-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7(1):59–83.Google Scholar
• Freeman F, Eddy S, McDonough M, Smith M, Okoradfor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth M (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(23):8410–8415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gielen S, Peeters E, Dochy F, Onghena P, Struyven K (2010) Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learn. Instruction 20(4):304–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guadagno RE, Cialdini RB (2002) Online persuasion: An examination of gender differences in computer-mediated interpersonal influence. Group Dynam.: Theory Res. Practice 6(1):38–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halpern D, Gibbs J (2013) Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Comput. Human Behav. 29(3):1159–1168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hattie J, Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Rev. Ed. Res. 77(1):81–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herring SC (2000) Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications. Comput. Professionals Soc. Responsibility J. 18(1). http://cpsr.org/issues/womenintech/herring/.Google Scholar
• Inzlicht M, Ben-Zeev T (2000) A threating intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psych. Sci. 11(5):365–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobs JA, Winslow SE (2004) Overworked faculty: Job stresses and family demands. Ann. Amer. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 596(1):104–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jessup LM, Connolly T, Tansik DA (1990) Toward a theory of automated group work: The deindividuating effects of anonymity. Small Group Res. 21(3):333–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones SE (2007) Reflections on the lecture: Outmoded medium or instrument of inspiration? J. Further Higher Ed. 31(4):397–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kiesler S, Sproull L (1992) Group decision making and communication technology. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 52(1):96–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leaper C, Ayres MM (2007) A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 11(4):328–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leslie SJ, Cimpian A, Meyer M, Freeland E (2015) Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347(6219):252–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lu J, Law N (2012) Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Sci. 40(2):257–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lundstrom K, Baker W (2009) To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. J. Second Language Writing 18(1):30–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luppicini R (2007) Review of computer mediated communication research for education. Instructional Sci. 35(2):141–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCallum A (2002) MALLET: A machine learning for language toolkit. Accessed December 1, 2015, http://mallet.cs.umass.edu.Google Scholar
• Mendonca CO, Johnson KE (1994) Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quart. 28(4):745–769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy M, Steele C, Gross J (2007) Signaling threat how situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psych. Sci. 18(10):879–885.Crossref, Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (2015) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2015. Special Report NSF 15-311, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.Google Scholar
• Narayanan V, Arora I, Bhatia A (2013) Fast and accurate sentiment classification using an enhanced naïve Bayes model. Yin H. et al., eds. Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning – IDEAL 2013, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8206 (Springer, Berlin), 194–201.Google Scholar
• Nelson M, Schunn C (2009) The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Sci. 37(4):374–401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newman ML, Groom CJ, Handelman LD, Pennebaker JW (2008) Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes 45(3):211–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nicol DJ (1997) Research on learning and higher education teaching. UCoSDA Briefing Paper 45, Universities and Colleges Staff Development Agency, Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
• Nicol DJ, Macfarlane‐Dick D (2006) Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud. Higher Ed. 31(2):199–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pagnucci GS, Mauriello N (1999) The masquerade: Gender, identity, and writing for the web. Comput. Composition 16(1):141–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Penner A (2015) Gender inequality in science. Science 347(6219):234–235.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prins F, Sluijsmans D, Kirschner P (2006) Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles and preferences. Adv. Health Sci. Ed. 11(3):289–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prinsen FR, Volman MLL, Terwel J (2007) Gender‐related differences in computer‐mediated communication and computer‐supported collaborative learning. J. Comput. Assisted Learn. 23(5):393–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway C, Smith-Lovin L (1999) The gender system and interaction. Annual Rev. Sociol. 25(1):191–216.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Savicki V, Kelley M (2000) Computer mediated communication: Gender and group composition. Cyber Psych. Behav. 3(5):817–826.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Savicki V, Kelley M, Lingenfelter D (1996) Gender, group composition, and task type in small task groups using computer-mediated communication. Comput. Human Behav. 12(4):549–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott CR (1998) To reveal or not to reveal: A theoretical model of anonymous communication. Comm. Theory 8(4):381–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sullivan P (2002) “It’s easier to be yourself when you are invisible”: Female college students discuss their online classroom experiences. Innovative Higher Ed. 27(2):129–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tajfel H (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner J (1986) Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Nelson-Hall Publishers, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Tannen D (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation (Morrow, New York).Google Scholar
• Taylor SE, Klein LC, Lewis BP, Gruenewald TL, Gurung RAR, Updegraff JA (2000) Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psych. Rev. 107(3):411–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thelwall M, Wilkinson D, Uppal S (2010) Data mining emotion in social network communication: Gender differences in MySpace. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 61(1):190–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Topping K (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Rev. Ed. Res. 68(3):249–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walther JB, Anderson JF, Park DW (1994) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Comm. Res. 21(4):460–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wieman CE (2014) Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(23):8319–8320.Crossref, Google Scholar